"Considered" Ha ha sounds like a very formal declaration of war to me......

Takes a *bit* more than that to equal treason my friend. You should really investigate the USC and just how many cases/what circumstances treason has
been prosecuted under.

You don't like Russia. We get it. You've all been pushing a bogus narrative about them and Trump for over a year now. Nothing will come of it though,
I assure you

But by all means, keep wasting your time on Russia! We love you guys for it. Look how great our poll numbers are now. Even liberal MSM is admitting
we've got our advantage back. Dems need a 7 point lead over GOP to be considered a 50:50 chance at taking the house back. We've got a 1 point lead.

You know what Von Clausewitz says though. Never stop your "enemy" from making a mistake. Or is that Sun Tzu. I'd rather the DNC go toes up than watch
it taken over by a bunch of new-voter "progressives" who think they should run the party simply because they decided to get out of bed and vote ONE
TIME. The millennials are *new* voters, therefore need to sit down, shut up and watch the adults work. They'll get their day eventually, but for now
the party is still Schumer/Pelosi's show. Some friendly advice would be to let them do their jobs, instead of all this false outrage/whining about
Russia.

Things are looking great for 2018/2020 and beyond. So yes, keep on doing what you all have been doing. Maybe you can have another march where people
wear their disgusting genital hats in typical moral destroy fashion. You know, because those have been so effective at countering the GOP's agenda.
Right? So effective.

Damn right. None of this Band-Aid "Lets attack the very tool that could've stopped this psychopath" nonsense. Although liberals love to blame guns for
all our problems, it is clearly a sign of the times and their destruction of our moral values. A total breakdown of norms.

Not to mention, this shooter was a communist/antifa revolutionary. He had ZERO to do with the right wing. The left owns this bastard entirely. They
created him, pumped him full of ideology and Hussein Obama himself normalized the actions of communists/black revolutionaries by watching them riot
and making excuses. "Well there community is in pain!" Obama proclaimed, while apparently ignoring the blood and bodies he and the Dems would have on
their hands.

Every single gun-free zone, or person without the right to carry ANY weapon (including automatics and DDs) for personal defense puts a little extra
blood on their hands.

School shootings have taken off exponentially since Obama's failed domestic policies and making excuses for violent revolutionaries (remember when he
wanted to kiss Castro's a%% after he kicked off?).

18th century
During the 18th century there was 1 incident of a shooting during the year 1764 (by American Indians).

As you can see, school shootings had been carrying on at approximately a steady climb over the past century or so.

>There were 226 shootings during the 20th century

>From the commencement of the 21st century to the most recently occurring shooting (of February 14, 2018), the number of shootings is 212

>2018 has already had 18 school shootings

Clearly the availability of guns had not increased, but actually decreased. Note how there were ZERO gun laws in this nation before the NFA of
1934. Any explosives, rocket launchers, missiles, gravity bombs, artillery, tanks, machine guns, howitzer cannons and fire bombs were all lawful to
own, build or otherwise use. Yet the passing of this highly unconstituional law did ZERO to stymie the increase in tragedies like school shootings.
These are ALL still lawful to own, however you have to jump through hoops of Big Brother (AKA the infringers)

The NFA and subsequent infringing GCA is an exercise of taxation and infringment gone bad. But as you see by the numbers above, made zero difference.
Like all gun control laws, they're based on ridiculous assumptions by those with zero knowledge of practical firearms application/use.

As you'll see, school shootings actually INCREASED after the passage of the NFA and then SKYROCKETED after the passing of the Gun
Control Act. Gun Control Kills

So, if access to sophisticated weapons of war is so evil (which isn't a semi auto rifle), why were the school shootings/murder rates so low when
actual weapons of war were freely available with zero regulation? This is the default position, and one we must return to. No matter what the cost.

What is clear is that the 21st century has already had nearly as many deaths as the entire 20th century. This is disturbing for obvious reasons.
Access to guns hasn't increased. Total moral destruction, and liberals blaming everyone but the criminal for their crimes is the problem.

Who else buys a new "assault weapon" (not really assault weapons, those are select-fire) every time someone makes an asinine suggestion like this?
Your hysteria/tear jerking funds the gun industry, FYI.

Getting ready to head to my local FFL and grab one of those Anderson's for ~450. Same day transfer, of course. Takes about ~25-30 mins to walk in-walk
out. Very convenient. Not quite as convenient as buying online though, from private sellers. Which is also legal.

You buy an AR-15. The fire the exact same round.
The M4 carbine is a variant of the M16A2. It is an air cooled, gas operated weapon.
Funny you mentioned about the M4, as it came from the M16, which ironically came from the AR-15.

Now the M4 uses a 5.56 X45 mm cartridge, as the primary bullet.
Now the M16 fires a 5.56 mm round.
The AR-15 fires a 5.56 X 45 mm.

So if the AR is a civilian weapon, then why does it fire a round that is designed for a military weapon?

Our children have the constitutional right to not be slaughtered regularly by AR15s.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But that comes at a price. That price is having the right and the MEANS to protect yourself from violent
attackers with AR-15s and whatever other weapons they choose. Nobody is responsible for your protection or the protection of our children except us
and those we entrust to care for them. WE are responsible for them, as are the teachers/etc we entrust their care to so commonly. The government,
above all else, is not responsible for your/our personal defense. They will simply never be close enough when you need help. And since we know
criminals will always acquire and misuse weapons against us, it makes no sense to not take some very basic measures to protect yourself, including:
getting/carrying/practicing with a quality firearm, considering if body armor (soft) applies to your risk analysis, and determining whether or not
there are additional more esoteric measures you can take (armored vehicles, long gun in a trunk safe, select fire weapons - very expensive, etc)

Security is your responsibility. And so is developing a solid security response plan for you and your family

To do that, we need guns and the
best possible guns available. Anything less is giving the criminal/terrorist/tyrannical government an unfair advantage. Something the Constitution
specifically sought to avoid (ie: prohibiting standing armies, unorganized vs organized militia, 2A, etc)

Of course they do, so allow responsible law abiding adults to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms and defeat criminals. Clearly everyone
here has already admitted the criminals still get their hands on the weapons, and that laws against murder/having those weapons make no difference in
their determination to carry out an attack

My daughter carries on her college campus, which unfortuantely is against their rules and could get her expelled. Fortunately gun free zones have no
force of law here, with the exception of certain places (like a court house). And she's never harmed a soul. But would be able to offer meaningful
resistance against a deadly attacker, unlike every single person at that school yesterday tragically.

Why did that coach have to use his body to shield those students? Why won't people like you let him have a firearm to offer meaningful resistance?
Especially with an attacker who utilized a firearm/programmed response (to exit the building) to amplify his attack. Clearly his intent was to cause
maximum harm/death, and no law/gun ban was going to change that. He would've gotten his hands on weaponry one way or the other, even if he ordered it
via the dark web.

More guns, more training and more accountability is the solution. Not less guns for law abiding citizens and still the same number for criminals.

Do you believe mental illness didn't exist in the founder's day? It was far more misunderstood then, actually. Yet, the second amendment is
CONSPICUOUSLY silent when it comes to mentally ill, felons, etc.

Obviously I have no problem with felons losing their gun rights, simply because they're afforded due process. Provided the "mentally ill" are also
afforded those same protections, I say go for it.

Otherwise, infringing on anyone's rights is unacceptable for any reason. Why should one group of people lose their rights simply to protect the rights
of another group? That isn't how the Constitution works my friend. There is no equity built in to those equations.

It is individual rights and rugged individualism. One for one, and you for you. Friends, family and neighbors pulling together to accomplish great
things, and our nation achieving at the highest level compared to other nations.

We are exceptional. We are great. And it is this way because of our Constitution.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.